Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rbmillerjr
He also qualified his statement that was the focus of the charge.

Was that the 'Screw 0bama' or somthing else?

From the article: At the hearing this month at Camp Pendleton, Torresala argued that Stein's behavior repeatedly violated Pentagon policy and should be dismissed after he ignored warnings from his superiors about his postings.

Nobody has to follow unlawful orders, so that isn't a big deal. He ignored the counseling, hoping to score a political victory. Didn't make it.

36 posted on 04/25/2012 1:58:15 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: xone

“Was that the ‘Screw 0bama’ or somthing else?”

Silly hyperbole. I find it funny that a rant like that is believed to be a violation of Article 34.

“Nobody has to follow unlawful orders, so that isn’t a big deal. He ignored the counseling”

You’ve got this mixed up. It is the superiors that ignored the content of what the counseling was related to. His qualification of “unlawful orders”, is critical to the charges.

Superiors, even in the military, are sometimes wrong. So, are courts. Initially, I thought he was obviously wrong, due to the warnings from his superiors. But, I’d like to see how the “unlawful orders” was refuted by the prosecutor. That should have changed things. I’ll bet the refutations were weak at best.


40 posted on 04/25/2012 2:12:29 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson